Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains the blocking behavior, return value, and the handling of old replies. However, it does not specify what happens when the optional timeout_seconds elapses (e.g., returns null, errors, or continues waiting), which is a minor gap in behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, providing necessary detail without redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action, usage, and behavioral nuances in three sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return value (reply text) and the blocking nature. It also gives usage context and a behavioral caveat, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters (message and timeout_seconds) are fully described in the schema, with clear explanations of their purpose and default. The description reinforces the meaning of 'message' and the timeout parameter is explained as the wait duration, so there is no ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool pushes a message, blocks for a reply, and returns the reply text. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'notify' by explicitly describing the blocking/reply behavior, so an agent can distinguish when to use 'ask' versus 'notify'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use it instead of ending the turn when the user is away and a decision/instruction is needed, and notes that pre-existing replies are ignored. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, fully covering usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses that the tool sends a push notification, returns immediately, and does not wait for a response. It could mention delivery reliability, but the key behavioral contract is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences: the first states purpose and behavior, the second gives usage cases. No redundant or vague wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter notification tool, the description covers what it does, how it behaves, when to use it, and what the message should look like. Nothing important is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already defines 'message' as a required string, and the description adds useful guidance: it should be plain text and short enough to read on a phone. This goes beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it pushes a message to the user's phone via Telegram or Discord and returns immediately. This distinguishes it from a tool like 'ask' by emphasizing that no answer is expected.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists when to use it: when a long task finishes, a build or test run ends, or to report something while away from the terminal. This gives concrete, actionable guidance for choosing the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.